forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Turner <je...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Adding *.html matcher to xdocs
Date Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:46:00 GMT
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 02:10:02PM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 
> Jeff Turner wrote, On 08/07/2003 12.41:
> ...
> >If anything, I propose we get rid of *.ihtml and rename *.ehtml to
> >*.html, since:
> > - ihtml has been broken for most of 0.5's development
> > - I don't think many (any?) people use it
> > - masquerading our nice semantic doc-v12 as HTML seems like a bad idea
> >   to begin with, because users have no idea what they *can't* put in
> >   ihtml.
> 
> This last point is interesting... it declares the problems of using an
> othogonal format (more in some areas, less in other) as a base format.

I'd say it implies that our source formats should never be more general
than our intermediate format.

> We can decide to fail if there is not correct content BTW.

Write a DTD for our HTML subset?  That would work, although...

> Why do I need to have html files?
> 
> First of all, I want to use a decent editor for the docs. Html has 
> gazillions of editors, and also the docs would be automatically 
> human-readable as-is, from source format, with a browser.

All those gazillions of editors don't know that they should be using the
tiny subset of HTML that Forrest accepts, making them worse than useless.

That's a good argument for allowing ehtml, though.

> The second reason is because of getting ready to xhtml2. But that's xml, 
> so we can easily validate that.
> 
> After other thinking, the "ehtml" feature is not only for html. What's 
> this "feature"? Content pass-through. Yes, I know I was against it 
> (IIRC?) and that IIRC I said it was a big fat hole in the content 
> separation, but it's damn useful if used right, and it's not a hole. 
> Skins can still decide to bypass it! It's not something that Cocoon 
> de-facto pushes through, it's something that skins can decide to work 
> with. We can make mistakes, can we? ;-)

Like, adding rowspan attributes to HTML tables?  Yes it's useful, but I
don't think we should make a virtue out of it.  It points to a deficiency
elsewhere in Forrest that we'll eventually fix (by allowing XHTML2
content).

> Imagine a <asis></asis> tag that makes everything pass through. It could

> be used for all formats, and in html it could be a <div class=asis/> tag.

<off-topic>
Class tags would be _really_ handy.  We'd get all the benefits of CSS
with regular doc-v11, without sacrificing SoC.

Though, in the long term it would be nice if doc-v11 didn't go the way of
HTML, where practically everything becomes <div> or <span> with a custom
class.  Why have <p class="foo"> when you could just have <foo>?
</off-topic>


--Jeff

> -- 
> Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
>             - verba volant, scripta manent -
>    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

Mime
View raw message